Joesus, you are clearly a philosopher in that you present a consistent message to any and all queries. We, the rabble, like to project our biases onto you and you, in turn, filter what you receive and (from some magic core of interest) express responses that we in turn see as projections. While that is all fun, it can obscure the transmission of fundamentals. As most understand, fundamentals are powerful thought-forms that enable gestalts while specifics are generally useless.

Can you perhaps lay out an outline of fundamentals that might serve as an efficient starting point for one seeking answers from you? I'm not asking for concepts per se, just your best shot at getting us started in the right direction before we start getting frustrated by too many specifics.

For my part, I want to know why you care enough to live. Why not just let go? Is there some compelling outcome of interest? Is there a concern that persists? Do you have a say in the matter?

For me, I couldn't say really. The only real reason to live is the certainty of the other alternative. Either way you will experience death, but the opportunity to experience life is unique. I would like to hope the outcome will be entertaining.

I assert that there is essential realization underlying the question "why do I?", perhaps even awareness of the wellspring of life itself. So, how to crack the seemingly endless shells of the human psyche in order to explore one's soul? Philosophy, spirituality, drugs ... these are all popular methods. Do they work? Joesus appears to be sure about his approach. Can he explain it? or does he maintain that it is accessible only by submission to it?

First of all I'd like to say "Holy Shit, Dan is back!" ahhh.. fond memories of your postings regarding my cult and all, sort of brings a tear to my third eye.. Are you still with the Indian woman you were last speaking of with the Father who was the spiritual mystic? Hope all is well with you and yours..

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 07, 2012, 09:41 PM)

Joesus, you are clearly a philosopher in that you present a consistent message to any and all queries. We, the rabble, like to project our biases onto you and you, in turn, filter what you receive and (from some magic core of interest) express responses that we in turn see as projections. While that is all fun, it can obscure the transmission of fundamentals. As most understand, fundamentals are powerful thought-forms that enable gestalts while specifics are generally useless.

Interesting way of putting it. Thought forms.. but then thought can be followed back to the origin of thought, if one is interested in taking that direction.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 07, 2012, 09:41 PM)

Can you perhaps lay out an outline of fundamentals that might serve as an efficient starting point for one seeking answers from you? I'm not asking for concepts per se, just your best shot at getting us started in the right direction before we start getting frustrated by too many specifics.

Seeking answers would be relative to the question. If one within the rabble, were to recognize a question that was inspired by anyone's (philosophical as you say) expressions, then that individual would approach that source with an energy of sincerity that is perceptible. Meaning that a conscious philosopher could tell if one is approaching with a question of sincerity or just looking to have some fun and potentially obscure the transmission of fundamental expressions of awareness.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 07, 2012, 09:41 PM)

For my part, I want to know why you care enough to live. Why not just let go? Is there some compelling outcome of interest? Is there a concern that persists? Do you have a say in the matter?

I do this, for all of me. I get something out of it. I witness myself, and in the awareness of myself as I perceive its connectivity to my world I expand the sense of myself.I suppose I could add that, the awareness of self has revealed alternate realities which lead me to the past thoughts which produced future outcomes of the experiences I have had. Those thoughts extend themselves into those around me where I find myself in those others.For me, this is in a way, the process of letting go, without becoming limp, lifeless or dead to my creative abilities or the creative impulse that is within all form and function.

Why do I care to live? Sometimes I don't, and that has in the past had its own connotations to subjective ideals in reality. When you think that you are your body, and you suffer the pain of physical or mental stress, it can sometimes lead you to an idea that you can free yourself from physical suffering by disposing of the body.Philosophically speaking life is subjective, and the desire to live is often equated to what is relatively important. If you attach yourself to reason such as I want to live to see my kids grow up to love my wife or husband etc., and those things are taken from you do you find your reason to live has left you or do you find another reason? If the reason for life is to attach yourself to something that can possibly be temporary then reason becomes relative to temporary ideals. Knowing why you exist in the first place is a matter of self discovery.

But I have experienced myself to be much more than that, and that any suffering I experience is of my own making.

Beyond that, there is an impulse or force of life and desire that pushes me beyond those thoughts of why, and into more of exploration because I can, and because it appeals to me.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 07, 2012, 09:41 PM)

I assert that there is essential realization underlying the question "why do I?", perhaps even awareness of the wellspring of life itself. So, how to crack the seemingly endless shells of the human psyche in order to explore one's soul? Philosophy, spirituality, drugs ... these are all popular methods. Do they work? Joesus appears to be sure about his approach. Can he explain it? or does he maintain that it is accessible only by submission to it?

Submission is an active choice to a process. But then any choice to accept a process is to recognize something about necessary mechanics within mechanical realities, or realities with inherent properties, or laws of nature.

I am sure that if one looks, one begins to accumulate experience. I am also sure that others have traversed these paths, and that it is useful to explore the testimony of those who have understood the enquiry into the nature of things.

First of all I'd like to say "Holy Shit, Dan is back!" ahhh.. fond memories of your postings regarding my cult and all, sort of brings a tear to my third eye.. Are you still with the Indian woman you were last speaking of with the Father who was the spiritual mystic? Hope all is well with you and yours..

I am glad to hear that you remember my temper. I hope you haven't driven too many people insane. I am still with the Indian woman, and her father is still leading a rabble of enlightenment hopefuls who drive us nuts most of the time. Luckily they do not live near us.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 08, 2012, 09:15 AM)

Interesting way of putting it. Thought forms.. but then thought can be followed back to the origin of thought, if one is interested in taking that direction.

what follows the thought back? Or, more precisely, who?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 08, 2012, 09:15 AM)

Seeking answers would be relative to the question. If one within the rabble, were to recognize a question that was inspired by anyone's (philosophical as you say) expressions, then that individual would approach that source with an energy of sincerity that is perceptible. Meaning that a conscious philosopher could tell if one is approaching with a question of sincerity or just looking to have some fun and potentially obscure the transmission of fundamental expressions of awareness.

How can you be sure? What if your beliefs on the intent of the questioner are misguided? Maybe you have extensive experience as a guide, but is it foolproof?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 08, 2012, 09:15 AM)

I do this, for all of me.

Are you separated into parts? I thought the parts were just a relative mental apparatus, to be realized as such. Why service that?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 08, 2012, 09:15 AM)

I get something out of it. I witness myself, and in the awareness of myself as I perceive its connectivity to my world I expand the sense of myself.

I am struck by the statement "I get something out of it". Why does it matter that something can be gotten at all?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 08, 2012, 09:15 AM)

I suppose I could add that, the awareness of self has revealed alternate realities which lead me to the past thoughts which produced future outcomes of the experiences I have had. Those thoughts extend themselves into those around me where I find myself in those others.For me, this is in a way, the process of letting go, without becoming limp, lifeless or dead to my creative abilities or the creative impulse that is within all form and function.

It does sound like an important process for you psychologically, the unraveling of yogamaya and the attainment of freedom. However, I am not sure how you perceive this process to be intrinsically life-affirming. In particular, what do you mean by "creative impulse"? I suspect this impulse remains mysterious.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 08, 2012, 09:15 AM)

Why do I care to live? Sometimes I don't, and that has in the past had its own connotations to subjective ideals in reality. When you think that you are your body, and you suffer the pain of physical or mental stress, it can sometimes lead you to an idea that you can free yourself from physical suffering by disposing of the body.Philosophically speaking life is subjective, and the desire to live is often equated to what is relatively important. If you attach yourself to reason such as I want to live to see my kids grow up to love my wife or husband etc., and those things are taken from you do you find your reason to live has left you or do you find another reason? If the reason for life is to attach yourself to something that can possibly be temporary then reason becomes relative to temporary ideals. Knowing why you exist in the first place is a matter of self discovery.

Surely the great realization is that any state that one finds oneself in may at some time be forgotten. If no state can be considered permanent, then no state can be relied upon as a final resting "heaven". This doesn't mean that temporary states are meaningless, just that they are not self-sustaining. "Heaven" may come, but it may also go. If there is no permanent "heaven", then what? I suppose a good first step is to know what there is behind the curtain of maya, and then go from there. This is what you are up to, or what you did, right?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 08, 2012, 09:15 AM)

But I have experienced myself to be much more than that, and that any suffering I experience is of my own making.

Suffering may be your own making, or it may not. You can only be sure of the suffering resulting from the relative that is your making. You may want to believe that you can escape suffering by ceasing to make it, but can you be sure? I guess you can try

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 08, 2012, 09:15 AM)

Beyond that, there is an impulse or force of life and desire that pushes me beyond those thoughts of why, and into more of exploration because I can, and because it appeals to me.

Grasshopper, know this impulse ... allow this impulse to become You. Who are you, Impulse? Why do you come?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 08, 2012, 09:15 AM)

Submission is an active choice to a process. But then any choice to accept a process is to recognize something about necessary mechanics within mechanical realities, or realities with inherent properties, or laws of nature.

I am sure that if one looks, one begins to accumulate experience. I am also sure that others have traversed these paths, and that it is useful to explore the testimony of those who have understood the enquiry into the nature of things.

Submission is overrated as an accelerant. It may work in the sense that it bypasses lots of psychological baggage, but it often serves as a trap for the follower and for the guide. Followers by definition do not know, but they must choose to submit based on belief that the master does know. How do they come to this belief? Is this belief a reliable measure of their chosen master? To submit to an external master is to reject one's internal guidance. Perhaps one's internal guidance is simply too underdeveloped to get very far, so the appeal of an external master makes sense in that context. However, what happens if the chosen master isn't really capable of delivering? How does one transform back to internal guidance and reject the external guide? Often, a "master" actively maintains the submission either consciously or unconsciously, trapping the seeker. Many who fancy themselves as competent guides or "masters" may have their own unrealized needs. These needs may result in the "cult of personality" phenomenon that I like to yell about. If one has submitted blindly, one is at risk of such nonsense. Instead, if one trusts internal guidance above all and therefore cannot submit completely, one may proceed more slowly but need not be concerned about the quality of instruction at any given moment. If it is good, good. If not, move on. Submission inhibits this iterative process.

I am glad to hear that you remember my temper. I hope you haven't driven too many people insane.

Me drive someone insane? I find myself responsible for the way I attach myself to others thoughts and actions, and I would hardly give less credit to anyone else.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

I am still with the Indian woman, and her father is still leading a rabble of enlightenment hopefuls who drive us nuts most of the time. Luckily they do not live near us.

There's an old saying, "Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water... after enlightenment, chop wood carry water.." Some things look the same in appearance and action but the assessment of reality thru the psychological association of the observer to the observed is never the same. Somethings may never change when it comes to inlaws

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

what follows the thought back? Or, more precisely, who?

What or who is it that can? That is worth discovering.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

How can you be sure? What if your beliefs on the intent of the questioner are misguided? Maybe you have extensive experience as a guide, but is it foolproof?

It's like playing an instrument.. at first it doesn't look pretty, but then you kinda get the hang of it. Ultimately it doesn't matter if it is foolproof or not, but that you engage in your relationship with the world in the first place in more ways than were previously imagined.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

Are you separated into parts?

No

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

I thought the parts were just a relative mental apparatus, to be realized as such. Why service that?

Parts are the illusion of separation, servicing those parts that are not of the whole would be like trying to fix rain.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

I am struck by the statement "I get something out of it". Why does it matter that something can be gotten at all?

Ultimately what you get is multidimensional and part and parcel to other actions and their effects of those parts that one is not always consciously aware of. Like you being aware of what is happening in your cells. Does it matter to you? It might if they are dying in huge numbers and not being replaced. At a cellular level, it matters to your cells if you are depressed, because that depression or stress transmits itself into the awareness of cellular consciousness. Because your consciousness is connected to everything it matters to everything, and everything is consciously connected to your consciousness. When I say it matters, I mean there is an effect within the relative boundaries of physical manifestations connected to the reality of cause and effect. The cells do not fret over changing conditions like the human ego, but they do possess a functioning quality, and when forced outside of those qualities will move to self correct.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

It does sound like an important process for you psychologically, the unraveling of yogamaya and the attainment of freedom. However, I am not sure how you perceive this process to be intrinsically life-affirming. In particular, what do you mean by "creative impulse"? I suspect this impulse remains mysterious.

No experience can contain the absolute. It can only reflect an aspect of possibility. In that, life affirmations are endless and sometimes senseless or meaningless since they can change with changing beliefs. As you immerse your awareness in consciousness itself, there is something much more than meanings of relative measure. The potential of conscious energy takes the imagination beyond the box and beyond purposes but it does not leave you senseless or without desire to create relative purpose within the parameters of the physical reality that you have created for yourself. It can and will enliven you when you immerse the awareness in that potential. That is what is referred to as the Bliss or Joy of Brahman/Consciousness. The mind bathing itself in the infinite, is relieved of its sense oriented boundaries of self measure and self worth programs accumulated by the ego. Of course the mind returns to its house of beliefs and boundaries, and it can re-assume its identity with thoughts and feelings, but it will not lose that experience. When a person dips their awareness repeatedly into the infinite absolute it becomes a permanent part of the awareness, like dipping cloth into dye makes the color permanent in the cloth.

Tho the mind is always connected to the infinite, the direction of the senses taken by the ego into the relative boundaries of belief programs, adopted by the family that raised the individual and shared by the common beliefs of society have colored so to speak the sensibility of the individual, and the relationship to the infinite has most often atrophied. One need only familiarize themselves with what is already there to begin to lift the awareness of the individual consciousness from limited beliefs in separation from the infinite self.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

Surely the great realization is that any state that one finds oneself in may at some time be forgotten. If no state can be considered permanent, then no state can be relied upon as a final resting "heaven". This doesn't mean that temporary states are meaningless, just that they are not self-sustaining. "Heaven" may come, but it may also go. If there is no permanent "heaven", then what?

A greater heaven than the one that was surrendered upon reaching the new one... ad infinitum...

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

I suppose a good first step is to know what there is behind the curtain of maya, and then go from there. This is what you are up to, or what you did, right?

Any journey begins with the first step. Asking the question, "Who am I" is a good start.What many enlightened texts point toward is an absolute which can be experienced, and ONE with which a relationship can be cultured.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

Suffering may be your own making, or it may not. You can only be sure of the suffering resulting from the relative that is your making. You may want to believe that you can escape suffering by ceasing to make it, but can you be sure? I guess you can try.

You can certainly discover the relationship you have with suffering and master that.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

Grasshopper, know this impulse ... allow this impulse to become You. Who are you, Impulse? Why do you come?

Those are some common questions of life aren't they. Anyone can speak of it, create an imagined belief about it, but not many will search it out, and know it.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

Submission is overrated. It may work in the sense that it bypasses lots of psychological baggage, but it often serves as a trap for the follower and for the guide. Followers by definition do not know, but they must choose to submit based on belief that the master does know. How do they come to this belief? Is this belief a reliable guide to finding a proper guide? And what of the person assuming "master" duties? Mastery of one's ship does not mean one has traversed the sea. I am sure many "masters" are aware of this at some level, but this may be obscured by the desire for being validated by having a following. Pity the "master" who realizes this but cannot cut loose from the dragging following.

There are inherent senses that are engaged, when one is seeking within the measure of their ability to comprehend.

Ultimately there are no limits to the human condition, but the ego often distracts the subtle senses so that the inherent senses only serve in the capacity toward which the mind is thinking/directed.

1 Cor 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Submission is overrated. It may work in the sense that it bypasses lots of psychological baggage, but it often serves as a trap for the follower and for the guide. Followers by definition do not know, but they must choose to submit based on belief that the master does know. How do they come to this belief? Is this belief a reliable guide to finding a proper guide? And what of the person assuming "master" duties? Mastery of one's ship does not mean one has traversed the sea. I am sure many "masters" are aware of this at some level, but this may be obscured by the desire for being validated by having a following. Pity the "master" who realizes this but cannot cut loose from the dragging following.

There are inherent senses that are engaged, when one is seeking within the measure of their ability to comprehend.

Ultimately there are no limits to the human condition, but the ego often distracts the subtle senses so that the inherent senses only serve in the capacity toward which the mind is thinking/directed.

1 Cor 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I'm glad you kept that statement, since I erased it without much thought. I like the new statement too, but they are a bit different. Sometimes I just nuke myself and start over.

Me drive someone insane? I find myself responsible for the way I attach myself to others thoughts and actions, and I would hardly give less credit to anyone else.

It's a nice intention, but mistakes can still be made.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 08, 2012, 06:06 PM)

How can you be sure? What if your beliefs on the intent of the questioner are misguided? Maybe you have extensive experience as a guide, but is it foolproof?

It's like playing an instrument.. at first it doesn't look pretty, but then you kinda get the hang of it. Ultimately it doesn't matter if it is foolproof or not, but that you engage in your relationship with the world in the first place in more ways than were previously imagined.

This reminds me of a caveat of empirical truth which is that while there is no certainty, one can be certain enough to risk one's life. In the case of a "master", the "master" would need to be certain enough to risk the follower's future.

While virtuosos may play the sublime music of others, then may not be capable of creating sublime music. They can only see as far as the relative system they have inherited.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

... When I say it matters, I mean there is an effect within the relative boundaries of physical manifestations connected to the reality of cause and effect. The cells do not fret over changing conditions like the human ego, but they do possess a functioning quality, and when forced outside of those qualities will move to self correct.

Let me get this straight. "Mattering" refers to the causal relationship of one's expression in the relative (one's form) to the chain of events that define the evolution of the relative? But how is this important to you who is liberated from identification with the relative? How does the form of the relative matter? All forms are equal to the liberated, in that there is no identification with any of them.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

No experience can contain the absolute. It can only reflect an aspect of possibility. In that, life affirmations are endless and sometimes senseless or meaningless since they can change with changing beliefs. As you immerse your awareness in consciousness itself, there is something much more than meanings of relative measure.

Would these be "meanings of absolute measure"? Is such a meaning possible?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

The potential of conscious energy takes the imagination beyond the box and beyond purposes but it does not leave you senseless or without desire to create relative purpose within the parameters of the physical reality that you have created for yourself. It can and will enliven you when you immerse the awareness in that potential.

I sense that this motive, "potential of conscious energy", remains a mystery. It is your God.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

That is what is referred to as the Bliss or Joy of Brahman/Consciousness.

I suspect that it is a bit premature to label this as the bliss or joy of Brahman. Only Brahman is qualified to comment on such matters.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

The mind bathing itself in the infinite, is relieved of its sense oriented boundaries of self measure and self worth programs accumulated by the ego. Of course the mind returns to its house of beliefs and boundaries, and it can re-assume its identity with thoughts and feelings, but it will not lose that experience. When a person dips their awareness repeatedly into the infinite absolute it becomes a permanent part of the awareness, like dipping cloth into dye makes the color permanent in the cloth.

Tho the mind is always connected to the infinite, the direction of the senses taken by the ego into the relative boundaries of belief programs, adopted by the family that raised the individual and shared by the common beliefs of society have colored so to speak the sensibility of the individual, and the relationship to the infinite has most often atrophied. One need only familiarize themselves with what is already there to begin to lift the awareness of the individual consciousness from limited beliefs in separation from the infinite self.

Who is this "mind", and what is this "infinite"? This thoughtform is interesting, but further descent may be required in order to get at the root of it.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

Any journey begins with the first step. Asking the question, "Who am I" is a good start.What many enlightened texts point toward is an absolute which can be experienced, and ONE with which a relationship can be cultured.

Reference to or description of "Absolute" in any text, ancient or modern, is a thoughtform which is, by definition, relative. Why would you want to cultivate a relationship with a relative thoughtform? On the other hand, it is a comforting thought. Maybe that is why.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

Those are some common questions of life aren't they. Anyone can speak of it, create an imagined belief about it, but not many will search it out, and know it.

It's funny in a strange way, too, given that there is nothing but IT. IT sure is stupid most of the time. Maybe IT likes that.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

Ultimately there are no limits to the human condition, but the ego often distracts the subtle senses so that the inherent senses only serve in the capacity toward which the mind is thinking/directed.

It is also true that the unmastered dimensions of ego that remain in a presumed "master" may also be a very potent disruptive element in the follower. A master must always realize that mastery is just another thought form. The master might get hit in the head at any moment and be reduced to foolish delusion. Or maybe the master just became too comfortable while basking in relative bliss and didn't notice that new bondage was developing.

Joesus, I noticed you moved from Oregon to 03741 BFE Missouri. I would think that Oregon is much more serene than out here in the heartland, and therefore preferable. But, then again, too much comfort gets in the way of tough work I suppose. My pop-in-law works out of Tiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu, a pretty rough venue weather-wise. A/C is becoming very popular.

How can you be sure? What if your beliefs on the intent of the questioner are misguided? Maybe you have extensive experience as a guide, but is it foolproof?

It's like playing an instrument.. at first it doesn't look pretty, but then you kinda get the hang of it. Ultimately it doesn't matter if it is foolproof or not, but that you engage in your relationship with the world in the first place in more ways than were previously imagined.

This reminds me of a caveat of empirical truth which is that while there is no certainty, one can be certain enough to risk one's life. In the case of a "master", the "master" would need to be certain enough to risk the follower's future.

The person who approaches anyone, in any teaching, be it grammar school, High School, technical schools or a University risks his/her future on the choices he/she makes to invest themselves in any endeavor. Every teacher only points toward something and the student decides for themselves whether to invest themselves in it. You will find many teachers who will preach the gospel of any subject and make a judgment as to whether the student has the capacity to grasp the subject and the ability to apply themselves to the subject of study.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

While virtuosos may play the sublime music of others, they may not be capable of creating sublime music. They can only see as far as the relative system they have inherited.

Whether the system is flawed would be tantamount to the truth behind it, not necessarily the comprehensive success of those who approach the system. Certainly not by the judgments of those who have no interest or commitment to the system but instead see the system as suspect, and in need of proving itself without any investment.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

Let me get this straight. "Mattering" refers to the causal relationship of one's expression in the relative (one's form) to the chain of events that define the evolution of the relative? But how is this important to you who is liberated from identification with the relative? How does the form of the relative matter? All forms are equal to the liberated, in that there is no identification with any of them.

All forms are created from the same energies. Identification is shifted from separation to union with all forms. They are seen as ONE. One does not have to ignore themselves to be liberated. In fact the liberated find more love in their relationship with their creation and find a desire to join in its evolution so to speak.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

Would these be "meanings of absolute measure"? Is such a meaning possible?

That might be a non sequitur

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

The potential of conscious energy takes the imagination beyond the box and beyond purposes but it does not leave you senseless or without desire to create relative purpose within the parameters of the physical reality that you have created for yourself. It can and will enliven you when you immerse the awareness in that potential.

I sense that this motive, "potential of conscious energy", remains a mystery. It is your God.

What I experience can't be owned, but if you wish to make that assumption I won't argue with it.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

That is what is referred to as the Bliss or Joy of Brahman/Consciousness.

I suspect that it is a bit premature to label this as the bliss or joy of Brahman. Only Brahman is qualified to comment on such matters.

Everything IS Brahman.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

Who is this "mind", and what is this "infinite"? This thoughtform is interesting, but further descent may be required in order to get at the root of it.

Experience is the best way to understanding.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

Reference to or description of "Absolute" in any text, ancient or modern, is a thoughtform which is, by definition, relative. Why would you want to cultivate a relationship with a relative thoughtform? On the other hand, it is a comforting thought. Maybe that is why.

The thoughtform within any language can only point in a general direction within the comprehensive abilities of those stuck in the identifications of thoughtforms. The absolute is bigger than the thought or the form projected from thought.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

Those are some common questions of life aren't they. Anyone can speak of it, create an imagined belief about it, but not many will search it out, and know it.

It's funny in a strange way, too, given that there is nothing but IT. IT sure is stupid most of the time. Maybe IT likes that.

Or extremely transparent, to reveal how an individual draws from IT and creates from IT with desire and intention of one that identifies IT as self. We all live up to our potential.. or at least what we believe that to be.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

It is also true that the unmastered dimensions of ego that remain in a presumed "master" may also be a very potent disruptive element in the follower. A master must always realize that mastery is just another thought form. The master might get hit in the head at any moment and be reduced to foolish delusion. Or maybe the master just became too comfortable while basking in relative bliss and didn't notice that new bondage was developing.

Every Master is on their own course in further mastery. There is no goal that is final unless its a game and you're keeping score.

Go God! Rah!

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 10:30 PM)

Joesus, I noticed you moved from Oregon to 03741 BFE Missouri. I would think that Oregon is much more serene than out here in the heartland, and therefore preferable. But, then again, too much comfort gets in the way of tough work I suppose. My pop-in-law works out of Tiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu, a pretty rough venue weather-wise. A/C is becoming very popular.

Thank god for A/C.. And yes, you are the observant one. I did move. Oregon is nice but then Missouri has its perks too, tho I miss fishing in the ocean...

As for serenity, it's so quiet out here you can hear the cows fart. Where I was in Oregon (on the coast) was a traffic nightmare during the summer months because the only highway to anywhere was highway 101. Every person that travels during the months from April to October with their motor homes and cars in tow I think travels highway 101. Hell I couldn't hear myself fart sometimes, which was kind of advantageous if you wanted to pass gas and get away with it in a crowd.

The person who approaches anyone, in any teaching, be it grammar school, High School, technical schools or a University risks his/her future on the choices he/she makes to invest themselves in any endeavor. Every teacher only points toward something and the student decides for themselves whether to invest themselves in it. You will find many teachers who will preach the gospel of any subject and make a judgment as to whether the student has the capacity to grasp the subject and the ability to apply themselves to the subject of study.

How many teachers start the class by saying "submit to my teachings"? Wouldn't it be better if the teacher just started teaching and let the student decide whether or not to follow along? The concept of "submission" imposes a relative thoughtform on the student that inhibits free movement. What is better, 1000 half-baked and near-sighted devotees or 1 realized siddha?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 03:14 PM)

Whether the system is flawed would be tantamount to the truth behind it, not necessarily the comprehensive success of those who approach the system. Certainly not by the judgments of those who have no interest or commitment to the system but instead see the system as suspect, and in need of proving itself without any investment.

Yes, but if the system is flawed and the practitioners do not comprehend the flaw, then what?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 03:14 PM)

All forms are created from the same energies. Identification is shifted from separation to union with all forms. They are seen as ONE. One does not have to ignore themselves to be liberated. In fact the liberated find more love in their relationship with their creation and find a desire to join in its evolution so to speak.

"Identification" means engaging in maya. Why would the One choose to be in maya? Why not choose liberation from maya?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 03:14 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

Would these be "meanings of absolute measure"? Is such a meaning possible?

That might be a non sequitur

Then what is the "something much more"? Is it meaningful? Is it related to "the absolute"?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 03:14 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

I sense that this motive, "potential of conscious energy", remains a mystery. It is your God.

What I experience can't be owned, but if you wish to make that assumption I won't argue with it.

Mysteries like "potential of conscious energy" are simply unrealized aspects of yourself. If you realize such a mystery, you will no longer perceive a "potential of conscious energy" but rather you will simply express yourself.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 03:14 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

That is what is referred to as the Bliss or Joy of Brahman/Consciousness.

I suspect that it is a bit premature to label this as the bliss or joy of Brahman. Only Brahman is qualified to comment on such matters.

Everything IS Brahman.

Then I wonder why we say things like "the bliss of Brahman". Maybe it is better to say something like "the bliss of engaging while liberated" or something to that effect.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 03:14 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

Who is this "mind", and what is this "infinite"? This thoughtform is interesting, but further descent may be required in order to get at the root of it.

Experience is the best way to understanding.

Even better is to realize this thoughtform to be relative. "Absolute" is a relative thoughform that you believe explains the mysteries of your experience.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 03:14 PM)

The thoughtform within any language can only point in a general direction within the comprehensive abilities of those stuck in the identifications of thoughtforms. The absolute is bigger than the thought or the form projected from thought.

Any thought is a thoughform, including the thought "absolute".

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 03:14 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 09, 2012, 08:19 PM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 09:18 AM)

Those are some common questions of life aren't they. Anyone can speak of it, create an imagined belief about it, but not many will search it out, and know it.

It's funny in a strange way, too, given that there is nothing but IT. IT sure is stupid most of the time. Maybe IT likes that.

Or extremely transparent, to reveal how an individual draws from IT and creates from IT with desire and intention of one that identifies IT as self. We all live up to our potential.. or at least what we believe that to be.

I think we are getting off track with this one. IT/Brahman/ONE ... starts to sound like buzzwords. I prefer using only a single term for whatever it is that you are referring to. Brahman has a good historical context, and is pretty clear. IT sounds more abstract, but it is also pretty loaded. Maybe DAN is the best word.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 03:14 PM)

Every Master is on their own course in further mastery. There is no goal that is final unless its a game and you're keeping score.

The goal is implicit in why you started in the first place. It was (and is) your internal guide.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 03:14 PM)

Thank god for A/C.. And yes, you are the observant one. I did move. Oregon is nice but then Missouri has its perks too, tho I miss fishing in the ocean...

As for serenity, it's so quiet out here you can hear the cows fart. Where I was in Oregon (on the coast) was a traffic nightmare during the summer months because the only highway to anywhere was highway 101. Every person that travels during the months from April to October with their motor homes and cars in tow I think travels highway 101. Hell I couldn't hear myself fart sometimes, which was kind of advantageous if you wanted to pass gas and get away with it in a crowd.

Yeh, I guess it would be quieter in BFE so long as the rednecks aren't shooting their shotguns at your mailbox and telling you to go back to California. Hopefully your neighbors are of the tolerant redneck strain.

That is always subject to what one is looking for (whether they can even see), and humility.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

How many teachers start the class by saying "submit to my teachings"?

I haven't known one to begin that way, personally.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

Wouldn't it be better if the teacher just started teaching and let the student decide whether or not to follow along?

That is usually the case. However there is usually some comprehensive feedback to identify a relationship with the material or subject of study as long as the student is sticking around or following along.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

The concept of "submission" imposes a relative thoughtform on the student that inhibits free movement. What is better, 1000 half-baked and near-sighted devotees or 1 realized siddha?

Well that could be relative to the mistake thing. If everyone idolizes the Enlightened master while staring with gaping mouths, and without an impulse to become what they experience, then the Siddha may be of no value (other than as a distraction in entertainment) to those who are already half baked, even without becoming a devotee.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 09, 2012, 03:14 PM)

Whether the system is flawed would be tantamount to the truth behind it, not necessarily the comprehensive success of those who approach the system. Certainly not by the judgments of those who have no interest or commitment to the system but instead see the system as suspect, and in need of proving itself without any investment.

Yes, but if the system is flawed and the practitioners do not comprehend the flaw, then what?

Well history shows us that even tho the flaw in the belief that the world was flat, didn't stop some from overcoming that system. Then there are the others...http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

"Identification" means engaging in maya. Why would the One choose to be in maya? Why not choose liberation from maya?

Understanding the nature of Maya liberates one from the illusions of Maya. Maya is part and parcel to the nature of consciousness as it inhabits both the unmanifest and its reflectionsas the manifest

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

Then what is the "something much more"? Is it meaningful? Is it related to "the absolute"?

The context of meaningful is applied within the relative. Consciousness is reflected in the relative. Expansion of consciousness is a relative thoughtform. The absolute is a concept within the relative that points in directions that are relative to differences in thought and experience regarding the absolute. These concepts reflect but do not contain the absolute.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

Mysteries like "potential of conscious energy" are simply unrealized aspects of yourself. If you realize such a mystery, you will no longer perceive a "potential of conscious energy" but rather you will simply express yourself.

Then I wonder why we say things like "the bliss of Brahman". Maybe it is better to say something like "the bliss of engaging while liberated" or something to that effect.

Does it matter how you say it, Or (like the thousands of texts that have been written about it) does it matter that you keep speaking of it to express how the ineffable is tangible in quality of experience but at the same time beyond qualities?

More importantly, can you speak of it without the experience and understanding of it and make any sense of what you are speaking of, and can one grasp what is being spoken of without knowing it?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

Even better is to realize this thoughtform to be relative. "Absolute" is a relative thoughform that you believe explains the mysteries of your experience.

Yes and understanding that beliefs change and do not capture the absolute, then points in a direction beyond the belief and also helps to reveal the nature of the relative.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

Any thought is a thoughform, including the thought "absolute".

Yes I believe I have indicated that reality

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

I think we are getting off track with this one. IT/Brahman/ONE ... starts to sound like buzzwords. I prefer using only a single term for whatever it is that you are referring to. Brahman has a good historical context, and is pretty clear. IT sounds more abstract, but it is also pretty loaded. Maybe DAN is the best word.

Dan has other connotations applied to it like birth, death, education and a father in law that sometimes tests the patience of Dan, But you can call it whatever you want.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

The goal is implicit in why you started in the first place. It was (and is) your internal guide.

Sort of like if you go far enough out into the universe you end up where you started kinda thing?

"Identification" means engaging in maya. Why would the One choose to be in maya? Why not choose liberation from maya?

Understanding the nature of Maya liberates one from the illusions of Maya. Maya is part and parcel to the nature of consciousness as it inhabits both the unmanifest and its reflectionsas the manifest

"Understanding" is also maya because it implies a thoughform that explains experience. As I understand, there are two terms used to describe maya: yogamaya and Mahamaya. I suppose "enlightened" thought would result in the experience of "Mahamaya" in that one's thinking no longer causes identification with the experience?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 10, 2012, 03:31 PM)

... The absolute is a concept within the relative that points in directions that are relative to differences in thought and experience regarding the absolute. These concepts reflect but do not contain the absolute.

Reread that and tell me what you just said. It sounds either circular or confused.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 10, 2012, 03:31 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

Even better is to realize this thoughtform to be relative. "Absolute" is a relative thoughform that you believe explains the mysteries of your experience.

Yes and understanding that beliefs change and do not capture the absolute, then points in a direction beyond the belief and also helps to reveal the nature of the relative.

Can the belief in the "absolute" also change? If so, then what of the "absolute"?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 10, 2012, 03:31 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

Any thought is a thoughform, including the thought "absolute".

Yes I believe I have indicated that reality

I think we are experiencing a bit of a logical breakdown on this concept

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 10, 2012, 03:31 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

I think we are getting off track with this one. IT/Brahman/ONE ... starts to sound like buzzwords. I prefer using only a single term for whatever it is that you are referring to. Brahman has a good historical context, and is pretty clear. IT sounds more abstract, but it is also pretty loaded. Maybe DAN is the best word.

Dan has other connotations applied to it like birth, death, education and a father in law that sometimes tests the patience of Dan, But you can call it whatever you want.

Dude, you are just jealous that I claimed it first. OM DAN OMIt has a good ring

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 10, 2012, 03:31 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

The goal is implicit in why you started in the first place. It was (and is) your internal guide.

Sort of like if you go far enough out into the universe you end up where you started kinda thing?

Maybe, maybe not. The goal may not be the reason for return. Perhaps it is an endless oscillation that is unresolvable.

"Understanding" is also maya because it implies a thoughform that explains experience. As I understand, there are two terms used to describe maya: yogamaya and Mahamaya. I suppose "enlightened" thought would result in the experience of "Mahamaya" in that one's thinking no longer causes identification with the experience?

Yoga infers union. Union of the manifest with the unmanifest or the reflection of consciousness absolute (in stillness or potential) with consciousness in activity. Maha means great or large. Either reference to Maya is going to expound upon the word Maya that has to do with not just illusion, but that which can be relative to a wide range of perceptions in awareness. From the most subtle to the grossest physical experience. The inference to illusion is that all manifestations are an arrangement of thought into matter, and so whatever it is that is experienced can't be permanent, because the arrangement of molecules and atoms by their very nature are not arranging themselves, but are being arranged by force(s) that are in constant play or movement.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 02:27 AM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 10, 2012, 03:31 PM)

... The absolute is a concept within the relative that points in directions that are relative to differences in thought and experience regarding the absolute. These concepts reflect but do not contain the absolute.

Reread that and tell me what you just said. It sounds either circular or confused.

You said something earlier:

QUOTE

As most understand, fundamentals are powerful thought-forms that enable gestalts while specifics are generally useless.

Whatever it is (the gestalt) that is being enabled, is incapable of being captured, but language can point in a direction towards ideas about it, and the senses are capable of being aware of it as they are capable of self awareness.So the term absolute is in itself a signpost like any other word that points toward something or no thing, but does not contain the ineffable other than in the illusions of ego based idealisms.

What is in the enabling of the gestalt, and what is the gestalt?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 02:27 AM)

Can the belief in the "absolute" also change? If so, then what of the "absolute"?

yes the beliefs will change as do experiences. The absolute itself does not change because it isn't a thing of change. Change is perspective, and it is varied by the approach and circumstance of focus and temporal relationships.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 02:27 AM)

I think we are experiencing a bit of a logical breakdown on this concept

Or the expansion of concepts that certain rules of logic cannot contain.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 02:27 AM)

Dude, you are just jealous that I claimed it first. OM DAN OMIt has a good ring

As a mantra.. It has a ring to it...

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 02:27 AM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 10, 2012, 03:31 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

The goal is implicit in why you started in the first place. It was (and is) your internal guide.

Sort of like if you go far enough out into the universe you end up where you started kinda thing?

Maybe, maybe not. The goal may not be the reason for return. Perhaps it is an endless oscillation that is unresolvable.

Endless, resolvable, unresolvable... eventually the mind tires, or leaves the struggle of trying to pin itself into a category and returns to the reflection of itself and, just is.

"Understanding" is also maya because it implies a thoughform that explains experience. As I understand, there are two terms used to describe maya: yogamaya and Mahamaya. I suppose "enlightened" thought would result in the experience of "Mahamaya" in that one's thinking no longer causes identification with the experience?

Yoga infers union. Union of the manifest with the unmanifest or the reflection of consciousness absolute (in stillness or potential) with consciousness in activity. Maha means great or large. Either reference to Maya is going to expound upon the word Maya that has to do with not just illusion, but that which can be relative to a wide range of perceptions in awareness. From the most subtle to the grossest physical experience.

It is probably a good idea to not use loaded terms such as "mahamaya" or "yogamaya". I have a distinction in mind, but it is probably not the same distinction that has inspired use of "maha" and "yoga" as prefixes to "maya". Based on a quick google survey, it appears that "Mahamaya" is often used in deistic terms (goddess Prakriti) while "yogamaya" can mean either delusory experience or the action of Purusha or the purusha.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 2012, 10:18 PM)

The inference to illusion is that all manifestations are an arrangement of thought into matter, and so whatever it is that is experienced can't be permanent, because the arrangement of molecules and atoms by their very nature are not arranging themselves, but are being arranged by force(s) that are in constant play or movement.

I find the terms "illusion" and "delusion" to be very interesting. This is perhaps the distinction I had in mind. In my world, the word "illusion" is to say that an experience results from, but is not identical with, its cause. It is not to say that our experience is unreal or meaningless, or that it has no real cause. The reality of the cause is often "understood" in terms of the structure and function of its projection in our experience. While the projection may not be "real", the cause most certainly is. There is also the realization that the projection may not be complete. We may not have enough information, based on our experience, to be sure about the structure and function of the cause. Alas, we have only the shadows on the cave wall.

Delusion, on the other hand, seems to say something about how one conceives of one's experience. In particular, it seems to imply mistaken assumptions about experience and therefore causes mistaken beliefs about reality. These mistaken assumptions are the delusions, and as they are integrated into our thoughts, the illusion, or maya, is "delusory". We might, for example, believe that when our brain disintegrates that we no longer exist. Why? Well, maybe we believe that the brain "experiences" the thoughts that result from its structure and function. No brain = no I. Why do we believe that the brain must "experience" the result of its activity? I suspect this is a biologically inspired delusion, sort of hard-wired into us. A tough habit to kick. Maybe a few spheres might get us past it, eh? But, whatever reasoning we take to free ourself from this delusion may also inadvertently create new delusions such as the conception of the remaining I as at least some fraction of our embodied personality. A "soul", so to speak. Common religion fodder. If we let go of it all, thought, what am I? And, in such a state of complete withdrawal, does it make sense to speak of motive? Why would the original I, Brahman in the unformed, undivided state, do anything at all? What could the motive possibly be? Why, God?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 2012, 10:18 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 02:27 AM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 10, 2012, 03:31 PM)

... The absolute is a concept within the relative that points in directions that are relative to differences in thought and experience regarding the absolute. These concepts reflect but do not contain the absolute.

Reread that and tell me what you just said. It sounds either circular or confused.

You said something earlier:

QUOTE

As most understand, fundamentals are powerful thought-forms that enable gestalts while specifics are generally useless.

Whatever it is (the gestalt) that is being enabled, is incapable of being captured, but language can point in a direction towards ideas about it, and the senses are capable of being aware of it as they are capable of self awareness.So the term absolute is in itself a signpost like any other word that points toward something or no thing, but does not contain the ineffable other than in the illusions of ego based idealisms.

In the "pointer" conception, the term "absolute" is unique among labels in that it apparently points to itself! A self-descriptive term in this sense would be logically vacuous. If we consider it to have meaning, we must believe that our conception of "absolute" has non-relative meaning. A non-relative thought!

One thing I find interesting is the belief that certain thoughts, in the proper context, may actually direct ones attention toward this "absolute". How can this be? How can relative truths be relied upon to supply a bearing toward absolute truth? Why should an initiate believe such a proposition, and follow these thoughtforms? Because others swear that they work? Belief is inherent in the process of acquiescing to these thoughtforms that are to "direct" us. We must believe that they will "work".

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 2012, 10:18 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 02:27 AM)

Can the belief in the "absolute" also change? If so, then what of the "absolute"?

yes the beliefs will change as do experiences. The absolute itself does not change because it isn't a thing of change. Change is perspective, and it is varied by the approach and circumstance of focus and temporal relationships.

Again, this thoughtform "absolute" (the "unchanging") is a thoughtform. If all thoughtforms are intrinsically relative to one's beliefs etc, then what does it mean to imagine a special case called "absolute" for which the "relativity" dismissal cannot apply?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 2012, 10:18 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 02:27 AM)

I think we are experiencing a bit of a logical breakdown on this concept

Or the expansion of concepts that certain rules of logic cannot contain.

Then what "rules of logic" do apply? What logic is consistent with

1. the rule "thoughtforms are relative to the beliefs of the thinker",and 2. the thoughtform "there exists an unchanging absolute"?

As far as I can tell, the only logical conclusion is that "the unchanging absolute" is a thoughtform that is relative to the beliefs of the thinker, and is therefore a delusion.

OR

Perhaps the rule "thoughtforms are relative to the beliefs of the thinker" is incorrect in its literal interpretation. Perhaps this rule is really a stealth belief that results in the trivial rejection of existing beliefs by the taker. By taking this belief on, one finds a path for evading experiences that are felt as undesirable. One finds "an easy path to freedom". All based on a belief. Nice system. But what is left behind? And where does such a traveler end up? Are there other "stealth" beliefs that are supplied in order to construct a new worldview in replacement of the discarded worldview? A new sea of beliefs?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 2012, 10:18 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 02:27 AM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 10, 2012, 03:31 PM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 10, 2012, 08:38 PM)

The goal is implicit in why you started in the first place. It was (and is) your internal guide.

Sort of like if you go far enough out into the universe you end up where you started kinda thing?

Maybe, maybe not. The goal may not be the reason for return. Perhaps it is an endless oscillation that is unresolvable.

Endless, resolvable, unresolvable... eventually the mind tires, or leaves the struggle of trying to pin itself into a category and returns to the reflection of itself and, just is.

Endless, resolvable, unresolvable... eventually the mind tires, or leaves the struggle of trying to pin itself into a category and returns to the reflection of itself and, just is.

Moksha

But then ya keeps comin' back for more! Why?

and I don't mean ya keeps comin' back to my nonsense, I mean in general you keep on bein' Mahadeva Ishaya. You don't stay in moksha. Why is that?

Just as the attainment of Moksha is the completion of the inward journey, the motive of Brahman drives re-emergence from Moksha. So I like to ask those who feel they have attained moksha, why are you back?

I find the terms "illusion" and "delusion" to be very interesting. This is perhaps the distinction I had in mind. In my world, the word "illusion" is to say that an experience results from, but is not identical with, its cause. It is not to say that our experience is unreal or meaningless, or that it has no real cause. The reality of the cause is often "understood" in terms of the structure and function of its projection in our experience. While the projection may not be "real", the cause most certainly is. There is also the realization that the projection may not be complete. We may not have enough information, based on our experience, to be sure about the structure and function of the cause. Alas, we have only the shadows on the cave wall.

If you take a different set of eyes and have them look at your cause and effect they may come up with a different story. Set a hundred different eyes on the cause and effect and you have a hundred different stories or thoughts and opinions. Then which is the real story?

We are not always cognizant of cause and effect because we are not so familiar with the self at the level that most things are created. A lot of what we create is at a subconscious level or the same level that our consciousness works at in dream states. Becoming familiar with the Self at the level of emergence and creation is a prerequisite to expanded cognitive understandings beyond the projections and assumptions of the surface beliefs of the ego.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

Delusion, on the other hand, seems to say something about how one conceives of one's experience. In particular, it seems to imply mistaken assumptions about experience and therefore causes mistaken beliefs about reality. These mistaken assumptions are the delusions, and as they are integrated into our thoughts, the illusion, or maya, is "delusory". We might, for example, believe that when our brain disintegrates that we no longer exist. Why? Well, maybe we believe that the brain "experiences" the thoughts that result from its structure and function. No brain = no I. Why do we believe that the brain must "experience" the result of its activity? I suspect this is a biologically inspired delusion, sort of hard-wired into us. A tough habit to kick. Maybe a few spheres might get us past it, eh? But, whatever reasoning we take to free ourself from this delusion may also inadvertently create new delusions such as the conception of the remaining I as at least some fraction of our embodied personality. A "soul", so to speak. Common religion fodder. If we let go of it all, thought, what am I? And, in such a state of complete withdrawal, does it make sense to speak of motive? Why would the original I, Brahman in the unformed, undivided state, do anything at all? What could the motive possibly be? Why, God?

One would have to build a relationship with Brahman/God to gain more insight into the question and the answer.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

In the "pointer" conception, the term "absolute" is unique among labels in that it apparently points to itself!

Why do you say that? It is a world like any other word and it can contain any number of connotations depending on who uses it.Put a pointer in the hands of a blind man and he might poke someones eye out, or if he is lucky he may find a direction to point the pointer. A person would have to align ones self with something that can be pointed to in order to use a pointer in the first place. When it comes to the absolute.. we are already a reflection of that. One would only have to look beyond the relative programs of egoic belief, to connect with that part of ourselves that was/is, before we inhabited the body and collected our relative beliefs from the bodily experiences and programs in the attachment to the body-world.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

A self-descriptive term in this sense would be logically vacuous. If we consider it to have meaning, we must believe that our conception of "absolute" has non-relative meaning. A non-relative thought!

Assuming anything often leads to bizarre thoughts and ideas outside of any direct experience. No concepts of the absolute are self explanatory. It is why the Vedas contain thousands of books describing it and the experiences of it.

Yes there is a connection to the word at a resonant level beyond relative idealisms and definitions.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

One thing I find interesting is the belief that certain thoughts, in the proper context, may actually direct ones attention toward this "absolute". How can this be? How can relative truths be relied upon to supply a bearing toward absolute truth?

How does any word or groups of words lead to understanding and experience?Pondering life and its meaning leads to discovery and experience.Certain words resonate at different levels of the mind and body.

Some thoughts take the mind outward and some take the mind inward when following thought with awareness.Intention contains direction and force, and what allows direction to take a course is relative to that which exists either in imagination or fact. What is illusion or not illusion.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

Why should an initiate believe such a proposition, and follow these thoughtforms? Because others swear that they work? Belief is inherent in the process of acquiescing to these thoughtforms that are to "direct" us. We must believe that they will "work".

Because they want them to work and because they can work, they work. Focus and intention, to direct attention or awareness, is the ability of consciousness to create and experience. If one is learning to follow thoughts inward and to experience the mind in both activity and stillness, what is inherent (previous to the experience) is opening itself for review as mind observes itself. Whether you believe in it or not, is irrelevant because often the experience is not what the outward sense directed imagination has created in the beliefs of the outward orientation of the ego anyway. The ego of the waking state mind often idealizes relative values and concepts. When the mind begins to let go of the changing identity, the inherent nature of mind opens itself to view and review, when it is not so distracted by the relative values of belief. NO ONE I know who has experienced the absolute, has stated (as a matter of fact) that what they imagined was what they experience of the absolute. It always exceeds the limits of relative imagination.

(if we follow Dianah's resolute prescription for experience) If experience follows the imagination then the experience of the absolute begins with the imagination of a mind that is far more in depth than that of the relative surface ideals of the ego programmed to the relative temporary beliefs of the outward bound sense oriented ego.It would be closer to reality to say, what the mind discovers of itself existed prior to body world orientation, as the consciousness that is prior to birth, and after death. Or that our consciousness which works in the dream state, of which we sometimes get a glimpse of in a reflective experience thru our dreams is the consciousness we connect with when we take the waking state consciousness inward. This is however an analogy. Many assumptions are made about dream consciousness.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

Again, this thoughtform "absolute" (the "unchanging") is a thoughtform. If all thoughtforms are intrinsically relative to one's beliefs etc, then what does it mean to imagine a special case called "absolute" for which the "relativity" dismissal cannot apply?

If someone is told to imagine it, then what is imagined can be replaced by direct experience if one lets go of any imagined relative concepts limited to identification with the relative.

First one would have to have an experience of something greater than the illusion that was imagined, prior to the experience. From the limited relative identity with ego, which is immersed in the temporary, any imagined idea of the soul or the absolute are going to be tainted with the boundaries of relative and personal measure. One has to repeatedly visit the absolute just as one has to get acquainted with a friend thru repetition in order to begin to know that friend. Whatever you imagine about that friend is going to be replaced with the reality of experience thru intimate exploration.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

Then what "rules of logic" do apply? What logic is consistent with

1. the rule "thoughtforms are relative to the beliefs of the thinker",and 2. the thoughtform "there exists an unchanging absolute"?

As far as I can tell, the only logical conclusion is that "the unchanging absolute" is a thoughtform that is relative to the beliefs of the thinker, and is therefore a delusion.

Well as I have previously said: The absolute in reality is more than the word absolute. The word and its connotations do not contain it, within any definition or meaning.. Call it Brahman, the Transcendant, God, Consciousness etc. etc. Give it a thousand names and add them all up and they still do not contain it. Words do a poor job of containing anything, but we build a familiarity with acceptable concepts. So the inward movement of the mind is directed to what is beyond concepts and from where we as a concept emerge. The more you explore that, the more the awareness expands upon itself in the depths of what is (sometimes) called the absolute, and sometimes called something else that would be appropriate to the speaking of it.

Since the mind is used to boundaries, one can use boundaries to break boundaries in concepts and experience.

You could say as you explore the absolute, you can see and experience what it is not (as it is defined within belief), and as you unravel yourself from limited concepts of belief, logic would have to expand beyond relative boundaries of any system of measure previously imagined at the surface level of waking state consciousness.

Then, as Patanjali describes states of consciousness in the Yoga Sutras, the expanding states of consciousness will have their own subjective and objective points of reference as YOU, or the awareness of you (individuality), witnesses both your Self and that which is subject to Self in cognitive creativity and expression.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

OR

Perhaps the rule "thoughtforms are relative to the beliefs of the thinker" is incorrect in its literal interpretation. Perhaps this rule is really a stealth belief that results in the trivial rejection of existing beliefs by the taker. By taking this belief on, one finds a path for evading experiences that are felt as undesirable. One finds "an easy path to freedom". All based on a belief. Nice system. But what is left behind? And where does such a traveler end up? Are there other "stealth" beliefs that are supplied in order to construct a new worldview in replacement of the discarded worldview? A new sea of beliefs?

You are describing religion and delusion?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

Moksha

But then ya keeps comin' back for more! Why?

Does the child that has grown into an adult live for childish desires, and why does a child become a man? Can a liberated man experience and desire differently than when bound to illusions of reality and still exist in the world?

IF so, how would/should that person live their life?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

I hope you enjoyed the snowstorm today

I stayed inside mostly. Worked in the barn...

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 01:49 AM)

and I don't mean ya keeps comin' back to my nonsense, I mean in general you keep on bein' Mahadeva Ishaya. You don't stay in moksha. Why is that?

Perhaps we have a different idea about what MOKSHA is

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 01:49 AM)

Just as the attainment of Moksha is the completion of the inward journey, the motive of Brahman drives re-emergence from Moksha. So I like to ask those who feel they have attained moksha, why are you back?

If you take a different set of eyes and have them look at your cause and effect they may come up with a different story. Set a hundred different eyes on the cause and effect and you have a hundred different stories or thoughts and opinions. Then which is the real story?

None, because a story isn't "real" in the direct sense. Not yours, not MSI's, not MMYs. But perhaps some or all have value as pointers? How would you know, though? How can one discern which story is most useful? I suppose this is what is meant by "resonance".

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

.... Why would the original I, Brahman in the unformed, undivided state, do anything at all? What could the motive possibly be? Why, God?

One would have to build a relationship with Brahman/God to gain more insight into the question and the answer.

Even better, one achieves complete Moksha (attains the state of Brahman) and knows directly. If the vacated form is reanimated, is it an avatar of Brahman? A pure conduit of the fundamental force of action? We tend to venerate our masters as such, even if it is not true. Perhaps it is our hope that we can be led by such a master. Was MSI such an avatar?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

In the "pointer" conception, the term "absolute" is unique among labels in that it apparently points to itself!

Why do you say that? It is a world like any other word and it can contain any number of connotations depending on who uses it.

You said

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

yes the beliefs will change as do experiences. The absolute itself does not change because it isn't a thing of change. Change is perspective, and it is varied by the approach and circumstance of focus and temporal relationships.

So you refer to this word "absolute" as a label of something (you said "itself") that does not change. There are other words/ideas/phrases that also point one's attention to "that which does not change" (this is the "mechanics" of your system, right?), but not directly. It is the unique state of the word "absolute" that it is the label of "that which is pointed at". Interesting label. Is there a thoughtform attached to this label? Perhaps it is better to drop the label in order to avoid the impression that the resulting illusory thoughtforms correctly represent what/where one is being pointed toward.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

A self-descriptive term in this sense would be logically vacuous. If we consider it to have meaning, we must believe that our conception of "absolute" has non-relative meaning. A non-relative thought!

Assuming anything often leads to bizarre thoughts and ideas outside of any direct experience. No concepts of the absolute are self explanatory. It is why the Vedas contain thousands of books describing it and the experiences of it.

But the term "absolute" implies something. If not, why not just invent a new (unused) word in order to avoid preconceptions? If this is untenable, it is because the implications of the word are taken to be meaningful. i.e., "unchanging reality" is a meaningful thoughtform that is not subject to the "relativity" dismissal mechanism.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

One thing I find interesting is the belief that certain thoughts, in the proper context, may actually direct ones attention toward this "absolute". How can this be? How can relative truths be relied upon to supply a bearing toward absolute truth?

How does any word or groups of words lead to understanding and experience?Pondering life and its meaning leads to discovery and experience.Certain words resonate at different levels of the mind and body.

Then why constantly dismiss thoughtforms as "relative to experience/ego/ etc..." if some thoughtforms are actually valuable in that they help point awareness toward "absolute"? What if some of the thoughtforms that you dismiss actually work in other minds?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

Why should an initiate believe such a proposition, and follow these thoughtforms? Because others swear that they work? Belief is inherent in the process of acquiescing to these thoughtforms that are to "direct" us. We must believe that they will "work".

Because they want them to work and because they can work.

The first statement can apply to any thoughtform. I can "want" thoughts of jellybean gravel to lead me to "absolute", even if it is absurd. The second statement is a claim, to be "believed" by the devotee. It is by no means self-evident.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

Focus and intention, to direct attention or awareness, is the ability of consciousness to create and experience. If one is learning to follow thoughts inward and to experience the mind in both activity and stillness, what is inherent is opening itself for review as mind observes itself.

That is all well. The question is, does your system do this in a pure manner? or are there "contaminants"?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

Whether you believe in it or not is irrelevant

It is not irrelevant at first. If I do not believe, I do not follow. Belief is a prerequisite.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

Again, this thoughtform "absolute" (the "unchanging") is a thoughtform. If all thoughtforms are intrinsically relative to one's beliefs etc, then what does it mean to imagine a special case called "absolute" for which the "relativity" dismissal cannot apply?

If someone is told to imagine it, then what is imagined can be replaced by direct experience if one lets go of any imagined relative concepts limited to identification with the relative.

To what degree is the idea "unchanging" a representation of what you experience at the culmination of ascent? This reminds me of the buddhist idea "all is change". Perhaps buddhists reject the idea "absolute/unchanging" because it is a thought and all thoughts come about during change (mental process). I understand the value of believing in an absolute/unchanging, just like I understand the value of believing in Heaven. However, neither may exist. Perhaps the state which you point awareness toward with your techniques may be thought of as prior to thought and therefore a pure "origin of being", but why must you think that it is "unchanging"? The world emerged from That, so change happened. Why?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

The absolute in reality is more than the word absolute.

Yes, but the word is a "pointer" to somewhere/thing that is presumably fundamental and to which the Ishaya method was developed to lead toward. It is a statement that there is a goal that one can attain by acquiescing to the Ishaya methods. But why is this word used instead of any other word? Why not say "frnidlx"? Does the word "absolute" have greater meaning?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

The word and its connotations do not contain it within any meaning. Call it Brahman, the Transcendant, God, Consciousness etc. etc. Give it a thousand names and add them all up and they still do not contain it. Words do a poor job of containing anything but we build a familiarity with concepts. So the inward movement of the mind is directed to what is beyond concepts and where concepts emerge. The more you explore that the more the awareness expands upon itself in the depths of what is called the absolute.Since the mind is used to boundaries one can use boundaries to break boundaries in concepts and experience.

Great, so I recommend using the word "frnidlx" as it is not loaded with any preconceptions. (yet) Or better yet, stop giving labels to that which is presumably beyond any concept or label. It is at best a distraction, and at worst a new belief that interferes with the process.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

Moksha

But then ya keeps comin' back for more! Why?

Does the child that has grown into an adult live for childish desires? Can a liberated man experience and desire differently than when bound to illusions of reality?

What desire does a liberated (hu)man carry? From whence cometh such desire?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 01:49 AM)

and I don't mean ya keeps comin' back to my nonsense, I mean in general you keep on bein' Mahadeva Ishaya. You don't stay in moksha. Why is that?

Perhaps we have a different idea about what MOKSHA is

Perhaps. Instead of a semantic distraction, I will refer you to the idea "ascension". Where are you at the culmination of "ascension"? This is what is meant by moksha, right?

Just as the attainment of Moksha is the completion of the inward journey, the motive of Brahman drives re-emergence from Moksha. So I like to ask those who feel they have attained moksha, why are you back?

Who says the journey is ever complete? Who gave you that idea?

The journey inward can be completed. However, return happens. Thus, an endless cycle. In the case of universal release, only pure undivided Brahman is. And then this mess happens. Why?

If you take a different set of eyes and have them look at your cause and effect they may come up with a different story. Set a hundred different eyes on the cause and effect and you have a hundred different stories or thoughts and opinions. Then which is the real story?

None, because a story isn't "real" in the direct sense. Not yours, not MSI's, not MMYs. But perhaps some or all have value as pointers? How would you know, though? How can one discern which story is most useful? I suppose this is what is meant by "resonance".

None? Then anything you say about your marriage and the experience you have, regarding your marriage and love for your wife isn't real?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

Even better, one achieves complete Moksha (attains the state of Brahman) and knows directly. If the vacated form is reanimated, is it an avatar of Brahman?

Where do you get that the form is vacated? Where does that idea come from?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

Was MSI such an avatar?

With or without your own experience, what meaning would any story of mine have?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

You said

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

yes the beliefs will change as do experiences. The absolute itself does not change because it isn't a thing of change. Change is perspective, and it is varied by the approach and circumstance of focus and temporal relationships.

So you refer to this word "absolute" as a label of something (you said "itself") that does not change. There are other words/ideas/phrases that also point one's attention to "that which does not change" (this is the "mechanics" of your system, right?), but not directly.

The mechanics of language maybe. If you know what a cow looks like, and you say cow to someone, does the cow that you picture in your mind transfer itself to another exactly the way you picture and experience it?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

It is the unique state of the word "absolute" that it is the label of "that which is pointed at". Interesting label. Is there a thoughtform attached to this label?

The imagination is likely to put a wrapper on it, when it is used to boxing things into neat little packages.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

Perhaps it is better to drop the label in order to avoid the impression that the resulting illusory thoughtforms correctly represent what/where one is being pointed toward.

You mean say nothing about anything and just let someone attempt to read your mind?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

But the term "absolute" implies something.

Of course... or a no thing.. take your pick. In order to convey a message you take the risk of being totally misread or misunderstood. That is a limitation of language.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

If not, why not just invent a new (unused) word in order to avoid preconceptions?

If the old word doesn't work because someone takes it and twists it, is it the word or the habit of twisting that creates the failure to recognize the essence of the thought within a word or language?Those who have the ears to hear and eyes to see kinda thing...

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

If this is untenable, it is because the implications of the word are taken to be meaningful. i.e., "unchanging reality" is a meaningful thoughtform that is not subject to the "relativity" dismissal mechanism.

Relative dismissal mechanism. Where can I get one of those? I could sell those by the hunnerds..

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

Then why constantly dismiss thoughtforms as "relative to experience/ego/ etc..."

Why did you say this?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

a story isn't "real" in the direct sense. Not yours, not MSI's, not MMYs.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

Why profess this as a truth:

The reality of something/NO-thing, that is in itself, not bound by relative values of measure placed upon it by changing perceptions is more likely to remain stable than the illusion that is placed upon it.Flat earth example again. If everyone on the earth claimed the earth was flat, was it flat, or more sphere-like as it is accepted in the determinations of late? Which is more true?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

if some thoughtforms are actually valuable in that they help point awareness toward "absolute"? What if some of the thoughtforms that you dismiss actually work in other minds?

What if they don't? That would have to be determined by what works and what doesn't work.. and what terms we are going to discuss, as we decide upon who's terms are valid.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 13, 2012, 09:22 PM)

Why should an initiate believe such a proposition, and follow these thoughtforms? Because others swear that they work? Belief is inherent in the process of acquiescing to these thoughtforms that are to "direct" us. We must believe that they will "work".

Because they want them to work and because they can work.

The first statement can apply to any thoughtform. I can "want" thoughts of jellybean gravel to lead me to "absolute", even if it is absurd.

That is a distinct possibility however there are possibilities and probabilities that surround the choices that follow the beliefs and imaginations of people who are experiencing different intellectual boundaries, within states of consciousness.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

The second statement is a claim, to be "believed" by the devotee. It is by no means self-evident.

You mean that anyone making a claim to something in experience, needs to be validated in order for it to be so?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

Focus and intention, to direct attention or awareness, is the ability of consciousness to create and experience. If one is learning to follow thoughts inward and to experience the mind in both activity and stillness, what is inherent, is opening itself for review as mind observes itself.

That is all well. The question is, does your system do this in a pure manner? or are there "contaminants"?

That is always a question for anyone who is suspicious, and who stands outside of the system and does not use it, or has no other system or systems to compare it to that are claiming to achieve similar or superior results.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

Whether you believe in it or not is irrelevant

It is not irrelevant at first. If I do not believe, I do not follow. Belief is a prerequisite.

Belief in something, does not mean it is in what will or can be experienced. So a belief in something that eventually comes to an experience, that begins as a distortion of the real event by definition, is not always the belief that follows the recognition and familiarity of experience.

When it comes to the nature of resonance with source... The mind is naturally drawn to its purest essence just as water flows downhill. The water does not need to believe it will flow downhill to do so, it is within its nature.

Often if you just quit throwing crap in front of awareness to follow, it will find its way back to its own source. The only reason it doesn't often happen, is because the ego is obsessed with entertaining itself with lots and lots of thoughts.

Belief is an acquiescence of mind to programs of identification, and if it is filtered thru mind chatter, what is imagined is unstable. If you can weed thru the garbage any original belief is going to change as experiences refine themselves in the familiarity of the relationship in which awareness is focused. Beliefs are constantly changing with changing thoughts.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

To what degree is the idea "unchanging" a representation of what you experience at the culmination of ascent?

You really are stuck on this endgame thing.What is unchanging remains within the changing and evolving experiences of expanding consciousness, and the awareness of self.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

This reminds me of the buddhist idea "all is change".

Yes, when you are dealing with the relative world of change, this is so.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

Perhaps buddhists reject the idea "absolute/unchanging" because it is a thought and all thoughts come about during change (mental process).

They (Buddhists. Not Buddha) don't reject it, they reject giving it a name like "God." Other than that it is within their tenets of philosophy and experience.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

I understand the value of believing in an absolute/unchanging, just like I understand the value of believing in Heaven. However, neither may exist.

The standing outside of the system and experience theory?

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

Perhaps the state which you point awareness toward with your techniques may be thought of as prior to thought and therefore a pure "origin of being", but why must you think that it is "unchanging"?

It is the experience of it that produces that thought, and the repeatability of experience in stability that gave the absolute a description of not changing.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

The world emerged from That, so change happened. Why?

What change are you describing? There have always been worlds emerging from That, according to the histories of enlightened dialogue. That from which worlds emerge does not change.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 2012, 12:07 AM)

The absolute in reality is more than the word absolute.

Yes, but the word is a "pointer" to somewhere/thing that is presumably fundamental and to which the Ishaya method was developed to lead toward.

The method presumably came from the absolute or consciousness, to lead consciousness to consciousness ad infinitum and to observe itself in both inward and outward movements.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

It is a statement that there is a goal that one can attain by acquiescing to the Ishaya methods.

It is a word with varying connotations and its own resonance to an inherent quality within all manifest reality. The unmanifest.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

But why is this word used instead of any other word?

It is used along with many other words that are similar to meanings and understandings, and there have been many many words throughout the history of humanity.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

Why not say "frnidlx"? Does the word "absolute" have greater meaning?

It may have more meaning in the familiarity of current language. If frnidlx was used often enough to gain a certain momentum with the cognitive functioning of coherent speech and communication, it could eventually replace the absolute as a word to point to the ineffable.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

Great, so I recommend using the word "frnidlx" as it is not loaded with any preconceptions. (yet) Or better yet, stop giving labels to that which is presumably beyond any concept or label. It is at best a distraction, and at worst a new belief that interferes with the process.

If that is what you wish to do when it comes to describing your experience of the ineffable then so be it. You will necessarily need to follow the label with enough information to create a resonance with the experience, that others can attune themselves to. Otherwise it may be like cutting a tree down in the forest where no one is there to witness it. It may go unnoticed or unheard.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

What desire does a liberated (hu)man carry? From whence cometh such desire?

That is the question of everyone who seeks liberation. If you would read scripture you might find out what the enlightened have to say about that. Better yet become liberated and experience what desire is at that level of conscious awareness.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2012, 06:54 PM)

Perhaps. Instead of a semantic distraction, I will refer you to the idea "ascension". Where are you at the culmination of "ascension"? This is what is meant by moksha, right?

There is that endgame thing again. In regards to Moksha. liberation is not meant to be thought of as an endgame thing. That may work for those who stand outside of any effort to gain Moksha, to amuse themselves with their own thoughts about reality.

By the way I think the video included in this link: http://viewzone2.com/plasticbrain22.html from the "Consciousness Biochemical" Thread (by Tone), is useful, and may fit within the plethora of thoughts spewing forth in this one.

By the way I think the video included in this link: http://viewzone2.com/plasticbrain22.html from the "Consciousness Biochemical" Thread (by Tone), is useful, and may fit within the plethora of thoughts spewing forth in this one.

Since I might become impatient, can you give me the run-down on the salient ideas?

What, you're so impatient you can't read what's in the links yourself? Personal experience is always better than assuming any statement will do as your identifying belief. Once you have your own experience, and if you want to discuss the refining qualities of personal differences as well as similarities, I'm all ears.

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 16, 2012, 06:32 AM)

In the meantime, I'm going to whip up a can of whoop-ass for you, Swami "I know that's your belief, but what is mine?"

I had a belief once.... As for yours... you care, and I don't need to worry whether you do or not. I am perfectly willing to bask in the bliss of Dan.. (Whatever that looks like) It would appear that whipping up a can of whoop-ass means you care about what I think?

Upon revisiting a thread that has been viewed over 100,000 times, I realized that the resident webmaster already whipped up and delivered a large can of whoop-ass. If only I had such stamina

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ May 07, 2006, 11:02 PM)

The problem, Joesus, is that you preach a philosophy for the lazy who would rather not bother with the beautiful and mysterious complexities of life and who are content with experience of the "One". It is a lazy person's philosophy, and I'm sure you know this but won't ever publicly admit it.

But you will probably admit that behavior and outward actions are trivial for you since all you care about is your self-centered and narcissistic experience of the "One". Do you sympathize with your fellow beings or is sympathy a foreign concept to you? Don't you have a moral voice in your head that says outward actions and behavior are important, and the willpower to manifest your thoughts (if you have any)? Are you really content just sitting around all day meditating on the "One"?

Out of curiousity, were you ever a hippy? Are you autistic or ever diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome?

The powers of mind are great, Joesus, and what you preach is that it's a good thing to handicap the mind and debilitate it, and to put a leash on its powers. On the contrary, we should be unleashing the powers of mind, not trying to overemphasize some consciousness of One or other meditative state that is but a tiny fraction of the mind's powers. You may fear the powers of mind, which is why you preach hiding in one's shell and focusing on the One since, god forbid, we realize states of mind where the One is meaningless. You preach this backwater state of mind you call the One as the sole good in life, and I scoff at it. There is much more to life than what you preach, and to preach handicapping one's mind in order to reside in the state of mind of the One would be foolish indeed since this may be accomplished through lobotomy. But why destroy our brains and our minds according to your principles when we can realize the full complexity and power of what our brains were designed for.

You do not know the answer to the riddle of life, Joesus, and so to compensate, you settle on the philosophy of the lazy in order not to ask the question in the first place. This is why you're content. It is a pitiful state, to be content with a lie; it is better to be discontent and to continue questioning life while still living life as it was meant to be lived. Anything less is filth and lies.